For several months since the beginning of 2023, TWC2 clients who were staying in Changi Coastal Dormitory complained to us about the difficulty of leaving the accommodation. Then in September, one of the workers sent us the video above of the shuttle bus ride he had to take as the first leg of a long journey out of there.
The problem stems from the fact that the dormitory was built deep inside the construction area of Changi airport’s Terminal 5, some five kilometres from the nearest public bus stop at Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal. Dormitory residents had to use the dorm’s shuttle bus to reach this bus stop, in order to catch a public bus to a metro station, and then take a train into town.
Workers complained that there was only one shuttle bus to the ferry terminal roughly every 45 minutes; TWC2 has seen the printed schedule which corroborates this. This was far from sufficient for the numbers wanting to go out on their days off when they needed to go downtown to do their shopping, to see their friends, or just for leisure and a change of scene. Even something like using an ATM machine requires getting out from the dorm since there is no ATM machine inside. The dormitory houses about 10,000 workers. Sometimes, the men said, they had to wait two hours before they managed to get a seat on a shuttle bus.
The video below shows the length of the queue.
Moreover, workers were charged $1 each time they used the shuttle bus. It was oppressive given their low salaries and especially as they had no choice but to rely on the shuttle.
The inconvenience of it all was particularly bad for workers who were ill. One of our clients ended up missing his scheduled doctor appointment at a hospital as a result of the long wait for the shuttle bus. In Singapore, with the pressure on our healthcare facilities, getting another appointment at short notice can be very difficult.
Walking might seem like an alternative, but not only would that mean five kilometres in the sun – as the first shows, there are no trees for shade – it was actually forbidden by the dorm management. We’re not entirely sure why it was forbidden, but may have to do with the fact that the entire area could be considered a construction site. But then, the question that arises would be why the dorm was not situated adjacent to the main gate of the construction site. Why was it so far inside?
On social media
We put out a post on our social media, and this was quickly picked up by Today newspaper.
We pointed out that the root problem seemed to be the decision to locate a dormitory where it was, in the first place, far from public transport and amenities.
We believe the primary agency involved in zoning matters is the Urban Redevelopment Authority, but almost surely, they would have consulted with other State agencies including the Ministry of Manpower and the Land Transport Authority. How every party signed off on locating a dormitory five kilometres from the nearest public bus stop with no provision for creating a regular public bus service is a mystery to us.
But now that it has been built, the immediate issue is how to solve the problem. We tried to find out whether there were any conditions set for employers or dormitory operators to provide regular transport services, and indeed there was. Under the Foreign Employees Dormitory Act (Feda), there were licence conditions for dormitories of Classes 1 to 3. We cite below the transport requirement for Class 3 dorms (300 – 999 beds):
Provision of Dedicated Transport11.2 The Licensee must ensure that residents who do not walk or cycle to their workplaces have access to adequate dedicated transport arrangements to and from their workplaces. The Licensee must seek LTA’s approval for any deviations from this requirement, such as providing dedicated transport arrangements for a minority of the residents between the dormitory and a public transport node (such as an MRT station or bus stop) that is approved by LTA. If required by LTA, the Licensee must implement additional measures that may include but are not limited to the provision of more frequent dedicated transport services between the dormitory and the residents’ workplaces. The Licensee must not levy any charges on the residents for any dedicated transport provided by the Licensee in fulfilment of his obligations under this licence condition or additional measures required by LTA.
Note:
- Words in bold were highlighted by us.
- The published licence conditions only refer to dorms of Class 1 to 3. Changi Coastal Dormitory has 10,400 beds, and we are told it is a Class 4 dorm. We are thus unable to see what licence conditions apply to them – now, why are Class 4 conditions not published? – but we can assume that if a Class 3 dorm has such a transport requirement, Class 4 dorms would have the same or a more stringent condition.
As readers would notice, the licence condition essentially refers to transport to and from workplaces, and only if employers do not provide transport. A narrow reading of the licence conditions would thus suggest that, since the majority of employers provide lorries to take their workers to work, the dorm operator needs only provide a low-capacity service for the minority of workers whose employers do not provide transport. It should be borne in mind that some workers work Sunday too, so the service has to run seven days a week.
The problem is that the licence conditions are silent about workers needing to go out for leisure, and it is this that creates a massive surge in numbers on weekends.
The failure to enact proper requirements for weekend traffic is inexcusable. No one can claim that this was unforeseen, since it has been a pattern ever since Singapore imported migrant labour. It just shows the thoughtlessness behind any planning for foreign workers in Singapore, stemming from the way we see them as inputs for production and not as humans with needs like other Singaporeans.
Of course, if the dorm had been located within a short walk from a public bus stop, instead of five kilometres inside a security zone, the issue would not have arisen at all.
Meeting with the dorm operator
The dorm operator, Hua Tiong Global Ltd, had a meeting with TWC2 a few days after our social media post. They said that they would not be able to match the frequency of Singapore’s public transport at peak hours, but will improve their services on Sunday evenings with immediate effect. Disappointingly, they told us that the $1 charge would remain.
A more comprehensive solution needs to be found. No doubt, it will not be cost-free. Retrofitting a solution to fix a bad design never is.
One party that should never bear the cost is the worker, since it would have been his employer who directed him to stay in the dorm and the worker had no choice in the matter. Dorm residents should not have to pay the price for this fiasco of a location through lost time waiting for a shuttle, or worse, being trapped in the dorm and unable to go out because there are no available seats.

A week after our meeting with Hua Tiong Global, the dorm operator, we heard from a worker in Changi Coastal Dormitory that residents no longer had to pay $1 for a shuttle bus ride. We do not know if this removal of the charge is temporary or permanent. However, the poor frequency and inadequate capacity of the shuttle service had not yet improved, he said.